:: Sarah Palin & Sex Education

As someone who spends much of her professional time working on policy issues surrounding sex education, I know how hard it is to find straight answers. 

Ever since Senator McCain announced his choice of Governor Palin, and especially since the fact of Governor Palin's imminent grandparenthood was revealed, we've heard over and over again about her support for abstinence-only sex education programs.  Much of the shaming and blaming has been justified by pointing to Palin's abstinence-only position.  To back up the charge that she supports abstinence-only, the shamers and blamers frequently referred to her answer to a questionnaire during the 2006 gubernatorial campaign in which she was asked whether she supported "explicit sex-ed programs."  Palin's written reply was, "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support."

But the Los Angeles Times ran a story yesterday that makes this tale more complicated. Apparently, a few weeks after filling out the questionnaire....

...in August of that year, Palin was asked during a KTOO radio debate if "explicit" programs include those that discuss condoms.  Palin said no and called discussions of condoms "relatively benign."

"Explicit means explicit," she said. "No, I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I am not anti-contraception. But, yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don't have a problem with that. That doesn't scare me, so it's something I would support also."

I don't think I've actually heard her say anything recently that contradicts this - not that she would, since the conservative, pro-life part of the Republican base loves her, and to reaffirm this position now would be a slap in their collective face.  But it's important to remember that the facts people repeat because they "seem" true often aren't, and that the media loves telling the narrative that they want to tell, as Bob Somersby reminds us.

One important, verifiable fact that has been missing in action is that Alaska is not an abstinence-only state in terms of the one source of federal abstinence-only money that goes directly to the states, the Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage grants. There are currently 25 states that are no longer participating in this program, including Alaska. 

Most of the states not participating in the abstinence-only-until-marriage grant program have decided not to do so because it conflicts with other public health priorities and because there has been little to no evidence to show that such programs are effective. That being said, it is possible that Alaska turned down the money for administrative reasons (according to the SIECUS state profile of Alaska, it looks like no one applied for the funds so the program ceased operating).  Or, possibly not applying for the money was their way of "opting-out."

There are other sources of federal abstinence-only money, including the Community Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) program, and Alaska has one grantee that receives that funding. CBAE grantees can and often do provide programs in schools. Alaska doesn't have any laws that govern sex education and/or HIV/STD prevention in schools.

Sex education is an incredibly local issue so it's hard to say even from all of this what is taught in a specific school, except in those states that have very specific health curriculum standards.  But even the most detailed curriculum standards tend to be general enough to allow for variation from school to school. In fact, one of the biggest challenges faced by sex education advocates in states with good laws and/or good health education standards is that there is often no way to enforce the rules - it's hard to know what goes on in each school, and even if one can prove that a school is out of compliance, there are often no penalties in place.

All of which is to say that while I personally don't think it's at all relevant, we basically have no idea what kind of sex education Bristol Palin got at school or at home and whether her mother's public policies or familial sex education failed. As others have pointed out, she may have used contraception that failed, or she may have wanted to get pregnant. We simply don't know, and it's not fair to use the fact that her teenage daughter is pregnant to attack Sarah Palin's policy positions, which may not even be what so many liberals think they are. 

And what if it turns out that her high school had a comprehensive sex ed program? Would we be so quick to call that a failure?

Read more!

:: Strange Times

Erica Jong has a repulsive column up at the repulsive Huffington Post. Ms. Jong is participating in the "just who do those ignorant hicks think they are" message strategy. The highlights are:

"Like Margaret Thatcher, Sarah Palin calls up memories of tough nannies, nurses, governesses and mommies.... If you think the real America means guns and motorcycles, snowmobiles and beauty contests, this pistol-packin' Momma's for you. Irving Berlin was wrong: you can get a man with a gun....White trash America certainly has allure for voters. Some people think rednecks are more American than Harvard educated intellectuals of mixed race."

But I quote this not to disgust you; rather, I do so to provide the context for an awesome comment I saw in response to the article (not at HuffPo, of course; at The Reclusive Leftist.

Mike J. says:

I read the article and my reaction to it was not nearly as restrained. I doubt it will be cleared by the moderators.

This is absolutely the craziest political year ever. The Clintons being accused of racism. Conservative base of the GOP rallied by a woman. Republicans rallying against sexism in the media. Feminists telling women they should stay home and raise babies, not run for office.

If I were into the Book of Revelations stuff, this would definitely look like End Times to me.

And it is only getting stranger. Read more!

:: Right Back Atcha

I watched Governor Palin's speech last night. She rocked. I cannot believe this woman is not on our side. She was strong, smart, confident, funny, tough and likeable. There probably is not a single policy position of hers that I agree with.  But I was rooting for her when she told all the smarmy, sneering jackwipes to go scratch. I was rooting for her when she made them look like the scared little boys they are. 

And I was rooting for her when she handed Obama his ass.

Why can't she be one of ours?  Why does she have to be so conservative? Why, I ask you, why, Doggamit!

There aren't any poll numbers yet that reflect the speech; I don't think we'll see those until Sunday or Monday. But there is data from Nielsen:

More than 37.2 million people tuned in for coverage of the third night of the 2008 Republican National Convention, which featured Sarah Palin’s much anticipated national debut.

Wednesday night’s RNC broadcasts attracted just a 1.1 million fewer viewers than Barack Obama’s record-breaking speech on day four of the Democratic convention.

Coverage of day three of the GOP convention drew a large female audience (19.5 million) — 5.2 million more women than tuned in for day two of the Democratic convention, when Hillary Clinton addressed the delegates, and 6.9 million more women than watched Joe Biden accept the Democrats’ vice presidential nomination last Wednesday night.

I think that's the first evidence that the Dem leadership screwed up royally by unleashing the viciousness they let run rampant during the primary.  Here's where the brain trust went wrong:

1. They drove interest in her speech sky high. Surely a good many of the viewers were like me, curious to see how she would do. I'd have been less curious if the Dems hadn't made such a spectacle of her.


2. They set the bar for success ridiculously low. If the Dems had prepped the media and the public that Palin was a vicious attack dog and a formidable speaker, the response to her speech might have been "huh, she wasn't that big a deal." Instead the headlines were "Palin the Rising Star."


3. They set themselves up to be seen as the sneering elitists they are.  They actually built with their own actions the paradigm of Ivy League Snob vs. Real America days before the Republicans went for it at their convention.  


4. They revived the problem of Obama's lack of experience. They bought right into an Obama-Palin deathmatch, with McCain hovering above the fray.

Has the Dem leadership learned a lesson yet?  Are they going to get their shit together?  I don't think so.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid - a guy who is supposed to be on our side - had his press guy make the following statement in response to last night's speech:

"Shrill and sarcastic political attacks may fire up the Republican base, but they don't change the fact that a McCain-Palin administration would mean four more years of failed Bush-Cheney policies."

Shrill.  Everybody gets the implications of that word.  So I guess this was Reid's way of signaling that Dems should be comfortable using low blows - because hey, she *deserves* it, right?  And sure enough, right in the first handful of comments, we see Our People having a good ol' hatefest:

- I guess the lady at the check out counter in Wal Mart should be groomed to run for Secretary of State…….. this is becoming pitiful and beyond a joke

- So how is this going to fix the domestic and international problems we face? She brings to the table NOTHING. Quite pathetic.

- I don't think Senator Reid should dignify this parasite by responding to her laughable attacks.

Over at the Democratic Strategist, some people are doing their bit to keep the Democrats in the gutter:

But the bigger question is whether Sarah Palin herself, in her acceptance speech tonight, does some tastefully delivered whining of her own. To put it another way, does she cast herself as Everywoman--a highly sympathetic "hockey mom" who's being beat up on by elitist Democrats and media figures--or as Superwoman--a highly acccomplished executive whose slim resume disguises a deep knowledge of public affairs and a demonstrated commitment to "reform?"

That's right, she's just whining. Cause that's what women do, whine whine whine.  They don't have serious concerns, real concerns, like men do.  

[Seriously, how does "whining" fit into the "Everywoman / Superwoman" dichotomy?  Being a hockey mom is whining? Or being an executive is whining? Or perhaps its RWF (Running While Female) that constitutes whining?]

Of course there have been plenty of completely inappropiate charges hurled around the media - that Palin can't be a good mother and run for high office, that she should be too scandalized by having a pregnant daughter to even think of joining the ticket, and that she's a bad person because of her own reproductive choices. Not to mention the characterization of an elected Governor as a "joke" and a "stewardess" (Bill Maher). And of course, according to Senator Reid, she's "shrill."

These are serious matters to women who want to succeed in politics and other spheres. Responding to them isn't "whining," regardless of whether the target is a Republican or a Democrat. It is important to address the use of stereotypes, constrictive gender roles and shaming as political tools against a female candidate. The deployment of stereotypes - even against an "enemy" - reinforces their validity and normalizes their use.  Words like "shrill" or "bimbo" or "beauty queen" don't just criticize an opponent for being harshly negative, unintelligent or lacking in substance.  They invoke the opponent's gender, making gender a part of the problem.   If someone wants to say that Governor Palin is inexperienced or too negative, so be it.  But calling her a "bimbo" or "shrill" is like saying the problem is that she's an inexperienced woman, or a harshly negative woman.  

Gender equality is supposed to be a core Democratic value. But you won't see this kind of essay at the Democratic Strategist.   It is a terrible thing to hear slimemasters like Giuliani scoring points on this issue.  Because he wouldn't have the opportunity to score those points if the Democrats would have just stood up for women in the first place.  Reid and Dean and the Obamabots created the opportunity that Giuliani et al are now exploiting.

Who will save the Democrats from themselves?  I don't have the slightest idea.

.

Read more!

:: How To Be An Asshole, Obamastyle

Clinton's primary ad addressing Obama's inexperience with emergencies of any kind was called "3 am."

Obama's text message announcing he picked someone other than Clinton for VP was sent at:  3 am.

Obama's superficial message: "take that, bitch."

Obama's deeper message: "I lack the maturity to be president. Elect me if you want important national decisions to be made by an arrogant prick whose ego will always come first."

To be clear:  the grave problem that this stunt highlights is not a matter of one candidate insulting another.  It is the Obama campaign's insistence on insulting the millions of Democratic voters who prefer someone else even while his numbers in battleground states are deflating.  He needs these voters, but he can't get past his own bitterness.  Instead he does something that will enhance their antipathy toward him, right on the eve of the Convention.

So where does that leave us, chitlins? We can vote for:

(1) a man with a terrible temper, who will sell out the Constitution for political gain, and who may stumble us into disaster, or

(2) a man who is a shallow and arrogant prick, who will sell out the Constitution for political gain, and who may stumble us into disaster, or

(3) none of the above; we need some real change and continuing to enable the Democratic party only stands in the way.

I'm going with 3.

Read more!

:: Surrealism as Campaign Tactic

Just had time for a quick peek at the news... and golldurnit if this wasn't the first thing I saw.

The AP says McCain "surrogates contended...that the Arizona Republican's turn toward drilling, which he had once opposed, showed how McCain would respond decisively to a crisis," while Obama's supporters "argued that his willingness to consider a bipartisan proposal including more drilling showed how the Illinois Democrat would pursue compromise to achieve results."

These two are running so hard to the "center" that they've actually smacked into each other and merged. Surely it must have occurred to Team Possum that by echoing McCain's positions, they are validating him? In other words: if Obama is sounding like McCain (a faux moderate) in order to appeal to the center, he's affirming that McCain *is* the center. This is one of the reasons the Obama campaign is (barely) winning the battle but losing the war - he may gain a few percentage points now, but the center, and thus the playing field, shifts to the right. He's letting McCain define what "moderate" means. And that's a long term loser for those of us who believe electoral politics is the means and issues are the end. [Of course if you think issues are the means and electoral politics the end, you don't care.]

Just to throw a bit of Orwell into the mix, here comes Tom:

Former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle, on Fox News Sunday meanwhile, claimed Sen. Obama "has always been in favor of offshore drilling." Daschle explained that Obama previously favored additional drilling once the land already in use was fully exploited.

Very well. And I have always been in favor eliminating restrictions on gun ownership and distributing firearms to every citizen over the age of 18.

After the Russians invade, of course.

I'm having a news embargo for the rest of the day. Read more!

:: Is NARAL just there to decorate the office?

I woke up this morning still in a tizzy about Obama's idiot statements about abortion over the weekend. So I headed over to the "Equality Means Choice" group on my.barackobama.com. I was pleased to see this at the top of the discussion list - and they are none too pleased. I'll join with them and send my scathing comment to the campaign to suggest they pull the candidate's head out of his ass and actually consult with some skilled pro-choice leaders that have publicly affiliated themselves with the campaign.

However, it is not at all clear that these "advisors" will actually be of any help. This is from the AP story on Obama's idiot statement:

In a statement, NARAL Pro-Choice said Obama's magazine interview is consistent with Roe v. Wade.

"Sen. Obama has consistently said he supports the tenets set forth by Roe, and has made strong statements against President Bush's Federal Abortion Ban, which does not have an exception to protect a woman's health," the organization's statement said.

"No! Really! He's going to be ok! We promise!" Wow. Once again NARAL has shown that they are so desperate for political relevance that they will undermine their own positions.
In case you forgot what those were (they clearly did), AP will helpfully remind you:

The official position of NARAL Pro-Choice America, the abortion rights group that endorsed Obama in May, states: "A health exception must also account for the mental health problems that may occur in pregnancy. Severe fetal anomalies, for example, can exact a tremendous emotional toll on a pregnant woman and her family."

Sadly, the opposition defended Obama better than his own pro-choice "advisors":

A leading abortion opponent, however, said Obama's rhetoric does not match his voting record and his previously stated views on abortion rights.

David N. O'Steen, the executive director of National Right to Life, said Obama's remarks to the magazine "are either quite disingenuous or they reflect that Obama does not know what he is talking about." [emphasis mine]

"You cannot believe that abortion should not be allowed for mental health reasons and support Roe v Wade," O'Steen said.

Jill at Feministe has a nice post on this topic - so much more articulate than I find myself capable of being. Read more!

:: Ever Get The Feeling You've Been Cheated?

Witch-burning accomplished, Obama can finally get real

I can barely keep up. Seriously.

ONE: Obama Not So Keen on the Constitution After All

This is the big one – Barack will go along with the evisceration the 4th amendment (aka the FISA Amendments Act of 2008) including instant retroactive immunity for the telecoms. This is VERY important stuff. Read about it here (the ACLU) and here (Salon's Glenn Greenwald). Yes, this is really happening, and yes, it is that bad.

Side Note: Obama loves implying that if he had been in Congress when the vote to authorize the war in/on Iraq came up, he would have opposed it. I never bought that particular cup of soup.

Some of us noted that his "present" votes on abortion were a sign that we couldn't count on Obama to stand up for us ("us") if it meant taking a hit, even on a matter of Constitutional importance. Others said those "present" votes were his way of showing leadership - a kind of "topping from the bottom" - and that he would never compromise on civil liberties. Well, score one for our side, unfortunately.

TWO: Obama's "Generation Joshua"

Read it and freak, I guess.

With the Democratic presidential nomination in his grasp, Sen. Barack Obama is making a full-throttle push for centrist evangelicals and Catholics. [...]

This month, the Illinois senator held a closed-door meeting in Chicago with almost 40 Christian leaders, including evangelical heavyweights such as the Rev. Franklin Graham, publishing magnate Steve Strang and megachurch pastor Bishop T.D. Jakes.

Obama's campaign is also launching a grass-roots effort, tentatively called Joshua Generation, with plans to hold concerts and house meetings targeted at young evangelicals and Catholics.

Read approving coverage from the Christian Broadcast Network (700 Club) here. However, Its seems "Joshua Generation" and "Generation Joshua" were already trademarked by the Home School Legal Defense Fund... amuse yourself here.

Side Note: Don't worry, ladies. I'm sure he won't be looking for "middle ground" between the two "extremes."

THREE: Obama Tells Koreans to Eat our Beef

It seems like every week our nation’s factory farmers mow down a new cluster of unhappy customers with a deadly tomato scourge or a plague on cheeseburgers. No inspectors, watered-down rules and general moral depravity make this country’s meat industry, well, words fail me here. Its horrible. But don’t tell Barack. If the cause is free trade, no product is too infectious for our exports….

“You can’t get beef into Japan and Korea, even though, obviously, we have the highest safety standards of anybody, but they don’t want to have that competition from U.S. producers,” Mr. Obama said last month in a speech to farmers in South Dakota.

Many scientists, public health experts and consumer advocates in the United States and abroad, though, have suggested that American beef exports are lagging at least in part because United States safety standards are lax compared with those in Europe and East Asia.

Side Note: Australia has grabbed most of our market share in those countries because their producers adjusted to the new, tighter safety standards. Its so unfair! Hey, what was that about being willing to say anything to get elected?

FOUR: Obama's Vetters Not So Good with the Vetting

From ABC News:

As a top official in the Clinton Justice Department, Eric Holder, one of the people chosen by Sen. Barack Obama to help screen possible vice presidential candidates, failed, by his own admission, "to focus" on the controversial pardon issued by President Bill Clinton to fugitive financier Marc Rich.

In testimony before Congress in 2001, reviewed by ABC News, Holder conceded 'some bells should have gone off, some lights should have gone on" in his vetting process then. Holder, now a lawyer in private practice, is one of three people selected by Obama to screen and vet possible running mates, looking for possible problems that could arise.

One of the three, Jim Johnson, resigned the post after questions were raised about favorable mortgages he received from a sub-prime lender, Countrywide Financial.

Side Note: Do I even need to say it? "Change." The end of the Evil Clinton Era. No more "Politics as Usual." This one is just too easy.

FIVE: Yes Possums Can!

Surely you've heard about the Obama Presidential Seal. Talk about a picture being worth a thousand words. Best part: the myriad possible translations of the slogan, "Vero Possumus." This is my favorite: "Truly, We Are All Possums."

Side Note: I got your side note right here.

SIX: "Get Over It"

I wish this were on tape. But hearsay is all we've got.

Obama agreed that a lot of work needs to be done to heal the Democratic Party, and that he hoped the Clinton supporters in the room would help as much as possible.

According to Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., Obama then said, "However, I need to make a decision in the next few months as to how I manage that since I'm running against John McCain, which takes a lot of time. If women take a moment to realize that on every issue important to women, John McCain is not in their corner, that would help them get over it."

Rep. Diane Watson, D-Calif., a longtime Clinton supporter, did not like those last three words -- "Get over it." She found them dismissive, off-putting.

"Don't use that terminology," Watson told Obama.

Side Note: There is no side note. It is what it is. Get over it.



Read more!

:: So Now They Tell Us

Guess what? Obama is the candidate of special interests too.

How many times have we heard the boyz claim that Barack was unsullied by corporate contacts and lobbyist money? Do you remember his appearance - and Clinton's - at the DKos blogger conference? When Barack said he would never take Washington lobbyist money, exactly what the crowd wanted to hear, they cheered. When Clinton said she would not commit to that because it was (1) unfeasible and (2) anti-democratic [here's a clue kids: you do NOT get to single out people to exclude from the political process just because you don't like their ideas], the crowd booed and hissed. And continued to say that she was the one who pandered to special interests.

Now comes an article that explains that not only do both McCain and Obama have numerous ties to evil lobbyists (half-serious there- some of them are evil) but that totally distancing yourself from lobbyists is impossible.

So why didn't they tell us this before, when Obama was using the issue as a cudgel against Clinton?

Here are some excerpts from Special Interest Access Abounds in Campaign (AP):

Obama's team in Nevada, put together last summer to help him with the state's January caucuses, included at least two Nevada lobbyists: one that represented Barrick Gold of North America, a mining company that also lobbies in Washington, and another whose clients included U.S. Airways, Corrections Corp. of America and consulting company Accenture, which lobby in Washington.

[snip]

Obama accepted an endorsement from former Sen. Don Riegle of Michigan but never mentioned Riegle also is a Washington lobbyist whose clients include London-based metals merchant Norimet Ltd. and Geneva-based liquor distributor SPI Group SA.

McCain and Obama have each taken new steps to hold lobbyists — at least those in Washington — at arm's length. But such moves are incomplete, at best, for putting real distance between their campaigns and special interests. Many operate below the public's radar: Unless the advisers are paid staff or donors, the candidates are not required to identify them or their lobbyist connections.

[snip]

To consort only with outsiders, McCain and Obama would have to accept help only from people who never worked in politics, wanted anything from government or worked for anyone who has.

[snip]

Technology experts who endorsed Obama include Andrew McLaughlin, who lobbied Congress and the Bush administration on trade issues for Google Inc. last year with McCain donor and former McCain Senate chief counsel Pablo Chavez; and Ed Zander, chief executive of Motorola, an Illinois-based communications company that lobbies in Washington.

[snip]

Superdelegates backing Obama include Joyce Brayboy of North Carolina, a Washington lobbyist and former congressional chief of staff whose clients include the American Bankers Association, Moneygram International money-transfer service and Recording Industry Association of America.

Obama superdelegate Moses Mercado of Texas, a former aide to then-Rep. Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., has been a lobbyist at the same Washington firm as Wayne Berman, who raised money for McCain. Mercado's client list at Ogilvy Government Relations includes the American Chemistry Council trade group; the American Petroleum Institute and Chevron, both with big stakes in energy policy; and the American Trucking Associations, whose priorities include highway funding and labor rules.

Shackelford, who lobbied Congress and the Bush administration on behalf of Hyundai, also lobbied for Lyondell Chemical Co. over discontinuing use of the gasoline additive MTBE, which helps prevent engines from knocking. MTBE's leading alternative is ethanol, which Obama supports. She is with the lobby firm Global USA, whose chairman, Stanton Anderson, lobbies for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform and is among Reagan alumni who endorsed McCain.

Another superdelegate, Robert Strauss of Texas, a former ambassador and Democratic National Committee chairman, founded the firm that became international law and lobbying giant Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. Its clients include the governments of Panama and South Korea, who want trade agreements with the United States that Obama opposes. Akin Gump also lobbied for Chinese oil company CNOOC, reaching out to McCain's staff and others on Capitol Hill as CNOOC unsuccessfully tried to win backing for its offer to acquire Unocal.

Oh my. It sounds like Mr. Clean is Mr. Hypocrisy. How many times has he stood in front of a crowd and declared he would rid Washington of special interests - while he had some of the biggest special interest representatives assisting his campaign?

The thing is, none of this is news. These people have been involved for some time. So why are we only hearing about it now? Why didn't journos point this out when Barack was falsely and hypocritically drawing a contrast between himself and Clinton, smearing Clinton as "the" candidate of Washington insiders and corporate fat cats? How do those DKos boyz feel now, knowing that they cheered the man who was lying and booed the woman who was telling the truth? And can any of them explain their behavior as the result of anything but a "burn the witch" mentality?

The bully boyz in the media and the blogosphere quite simply hated her. And no lie was too egregious to print. No fact too obvious to be misreported - or never reported at all.

Read more!

:: Two Photos of the Boys in Action

Its the new metric.
You tell me what these photos say.

Old vs. Young? Security vs. Risk? Solid Leadership vs. Fruity Narcissist? Country vs. Urban? Tradition vs. Trendiness? Rugged Individualist vs. Elitist Snob? Experienced Dad vs. Know-it-All Son? Everyman vs. Whole Foods Nation? Beer vs. Malbec? Navy Cap vs. Safety Helmet? or Classic, its Two Guys Again, Of Course.

Enhance your viewing experience. Look at the photos and pretend - one at a time - that you are: a blue collar white or latino man; a suburban soccer mom with two kids; a Wall Street Journal reading white man; a white or latino female nurse; a white or latino low wage worker of any gender. [I think we know already what African American voters think].

Senator McCain speaking to reporters after taking an air-boat ride in the Everglades, June 7:


Senator Obama on a family bike ride, June 8:



Read more!

:: There He Goes Again

Obama's habit of backtracking on bold statements won't cut it in the general.

This is not a post about U.S. foreign policy and Israel. Its a post about the campaign. No ifs ands or buts.

From the New York Times:

The morning after claiming the Democratic nomination, Senator Obama spoke to skeptical members of a pro-Israel lobby and made a pledge that some of them found pleasantly surprising: “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”

That statement generated a storm of controversy in the Middle East, with one Kuwaiti daily calling it “a slap in the face” to Arabs. And over the last 24 hours, as Mr. Obama and his campaign have sought to explain his initial remarks, and suggested that an undivided Jerusalem would be hard to achieve, they have been accused of backtracking, which has generated a new round of criticism, this one here at home among Jewish groups.

[snip]

Sensing an opportunity, the Republican National Committee and allied groups on Friday accused Mr. Obama of “flip-flopping,” echoing earlier criticism of what they say is his inconsistent position on having talks with the leaders of rogue states like Iran. And Mr. McCain, campaigning in southern Florida, which has a large Jewish population, quickly echoed those attacks.

“I can’t react to every comment that Senator Obama makes, because it probably will change,” he said after an air boat ride through the Everglades, “as it did on sitting down and talking unconditionally with Ahmadinejad and dictators.”

Its a classic "there he goes again" moment. McCain sounds confident, jocular - like he and the reporters are sharing an in-joke. If Hillary Clinton had said this - after an air boat ride through the Everglades, no less - a chorus of media pundits and liberal bloggers would have condemned her in that "just who does she think she is" tone they use so often. Watch for McCain to use this tone to force Obama into a unlucky paradigm - McCain the responsible father who has seen it all, Obama the irresponsible son who can't decide who he is.

How did Obama handle the blowback from the Middle East? More from the same article:

In an interview with CNN on Thursday, Mr. Obama was asked about criticisms from the Arab world, and whether his remarks meant that Palestinians had no claim to Jerusalem.

“Well,” he replied, “obviously it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues,” including the status of Jerusalem.

While restating his support for an undivided city, he also said, “My belief is that, as a practical matter, it would be very difficult to execute.”

An article on Friday in The Jerusalem Post sought to clarify Mr. Obama’s stance further. In it, an unnamed foreign policy adviser to Mr. Obama was quoted as saying that the candidate’s position is that “Jerusalem remains Israel’s capital and it’s not going to be divided by barbed wire and checkpoints as it was in 1948-1967.”

That formulation does not rule out the city simultaneously serving as the capital of a Palestinian state or Palestinians’ being granted control of some Arab neighborhoods there.

With criticism mounting on Friday from Republicans and some Jewish groups, supporters of Mr. Obama rushed to his defense...

[Rep. Robert] Wexler called Mr. Obama’s position the “most pro-Israel of all” because he has promised to respect whatever agreement Israel and Palestinians reach through negotiations rather than impose an American solution.

How do you like that? His shifted from a bold statement to "I'll go along with whatever they say" in roughly one week. He validated McCain's flippant little observation. It won't take long for reporters to realign their bias.

I told you so.

Read more!

:: A note about redemption

I feel it's only fair to warn you that this is a sappy post. Feel free to pass and go on to the next one. Hopefully ciccina or lady bec (or buffy if she isn't still coughing up a lung) will come forward with more cogent analysis of yesterday's news. In the meantime, you get my emotional reaction.

I found myself in tears a lot yesterday as I was listening to the news about Hillary's farewell speech, and Barack's gracious acceptance, and it left me rather confused. I mean, it's not like we didn't know what Hillary was going to do. Hell, we knew it was over weeks ago, even though I was proud of her for fighting it out to the very end. We could probably even have guessed what she was actually going to say: she's talk about the historical meaning of her campaign, the message for little girls, the value of young people, a big endorsement for Obama, etc. So why the tears?

Well, for one thing, watching her finally concede defeat was heartbreaking in itself. And it was a really good speech, even if filled with predictable elements. But then I realized that it wasn't just about Hillary's departure. A few minutes after hearing coverage of her speech, I found myself in tears listening to an NPR story about students at Howard University Middle School, and how Obama's campaign has affected them. Teachers spoke about the changes they'd seen in their students since the campaign started, how much more energetic and engaged they were in their studies. Students talked about how Obama inspired them.

And that's when I realized why I spent so much time in tears: because both of these campaigns have inspired millions of people in this country in ways that past campaigns never could. When I look at McCain in light of the two Democratic contenders, I wonder how on earth people could see value in sticking with white, privileged, narrow-minded, callous, boring, old-fashioned, conservative, war-mongering policies of this administration, as well as a McCain administration. Hillary and Obama's campaigns each talk about a United States that I want to be a part of. And it's been a long long time since I've felt that kind of political emotion. So yes, there were tears of sadness yesterday, but frankly, tears of hope, tears of happiness that these campaigns have reached and touched people who would otherwise have stayed out of the race.

Now, back to our regularly schedule, cynical programming. Read more!

:: Too little too late

Well, happily for all of us, the tremendous heat is going to give me a lot of time to catch up on my blogging. And laundry. But that's a different story. So brace yourself for TWO posts.

I've noticed that none of my Esteemed Colleagues have written about Hillary's speech yesterday, so I will attempt to add my opinion from far away, and a day late (this is how leaving the Capitol changes your values: they were at the speech, I was at yoga). But first, I'd like to turn away from the campaign for a moment and back to an earlier topic: the ongoing defensiveness at NARAL Pro-Choice America, following their premature presidential endorsement.

I was somewhat startled to receive in my (virtual) mailbox the other day a (virtual) letter from Nancy Keenan in response to my request to be removed from NARAL's mailing list. This would have been a lovely gesture three weeks ago when they first made this idiotic move, and faced an outstanding backlash from their own supporters and other feminist political leaders. But now, it rings hollow, which is sort of a shame, because this is the kind reasoning I would have liked to hear (and many asked for) at the time:

The timing of our endorsement was based on several factors. At the time our PAC endorsed, Sen. Obama lead overwhelmingly in the important markers leading to the nomination: pledged delegates, superdelegates, popular vote and cash on hand. Sen. Obama needed fewer than 30% of the remaining delegates to win; Sen. Clinton needed to win more than 70%. He is very likely going to be the Democratic nominee.

You can't argue with that cold logic. So why not just display cold logic instead of insipid cheering? Honestly, by the end of Nancy's video announcement, I was ready for her to get up and start waving pompoms.

But the rest of their explanation makes it clear to me that not only were they just sure they had the right candidate, they also wanted to make it it okay for their members to vote against his opponent, Hillary.

Second, the vast majority of voters still don't know just how pro-choice Barack Obama is and how anti-choice John McCain has been during the quarter-century he has been in Washington, DC. Many voters who may be inclined to support McCain don't know his positions on specific issues, particularly his consistent opposition to a woman's right to choose. They believe instead that John McCain is a "moderate" and a "maverick" so assume he must be pro-choice.

Sen. Obama has also been a strong advocate for a woman's right to choose throughout his career in public service. Since joining the Senate in 2005, he has worked to unite Americans on both sides of this debate behind commonsense, common-ground ways to prevent unintended pregnancy. He is an original cosponsor of the Prevention First Act, a package of proposals that would, among other things, provide teens with comprehensive sex education, prevent pharmacies from denying women access to their birth-control prescriptions, and increase access to family-planning services. Sen. Obama is also a cosponsor of the Freedom of Choice Act, which would codify the tenets of Roe v. Wade and protect the right to choose for future generations. And he is the author of legislation to fix the birth-control pricing crisis facing millions of low-income women across the country today.

In other words kids, you don't need to vote for that crone Hillary! You can be like all the other cool progressive kids and make a vote for Obama AND for choice! (Nevermind that he says really weird and vague things about protecting Roe. With their new close relationship, can NARAL fix that??)

Which leads me to what NARAL continues to miss (or ignore), and which has lead many of us (hundreds? thousands? I'm guessing thousands) to give up our NARAL membership. First, that insipid announcement showed total disregard for its membership, many of whom were (and are) strong Hillary supporters. It made light of an important decision, not just for an organization, but for a movement. If their board was so split, then surely they should have known that their membership would be equally split. For me that indicates either hubris or incompetence. Either way, I'd rather not be associated with it.

Second, the contention that they could not campaign against McCain until they had someone to campaign for. Well, maybe I'm extraordinarily capable, but I have no problem doing that. I could support Hillary, and still acknowledge that Obama was also an excellent choice. And because there are two good pro-choice candidates, I find it very easy to point to McCain and talk about how this supposed "maverick" has embraced the very worst Christian fundamentalists this nation has to offer in order to get elected, and about his horrific voting record on reproductive health and freedom. See? That was easy.

I'll continue to support my local NARAL, one of many that was left scrambling to explain to its own membership that they had not made any endorsement themselves, and I wear my Planned Parenthood votes t-shirt with pride, but I'm staying clear of NARAL-PCA.

Read more!

:: The Massive Tool(s) Report

Oh my god. These people are such massive tools.

First: the geniuses at Slate's "XX blog" - who have been bashing Hillary for months on end with every anti-feminist talking point to come out of the Obama campaign, but still call themselves feminists - are doing a live-interactive-web thingy at the ever-repellent (sorry, Buffy) Washington Post. I'll cut to the chase - check out this exchange, with a few formatting changes added because I can't help myself:

Edwardsville, Illinois:

I'm a big fan of Meghan O'Rourke's writing, but when she wrote that "Clinton's relationship to gender seemed at turns angry and deeply ambivalent" in contrast to Obama's relationship to race, I had to laugh.

Meghan, have you read "Dreams of My Father" or "Audacity of Hope"? If so, do you really believe that Obama's relationship to race is anything but "angry and deeply ambivalent?" I think the whole controversy with Rev. Wright arose from just that anger and ambivalence, and my Senator's quest to reconcile himself with race.

I also don't think his anger and ambivalence (or hers) ought to be counted as a negative. Shouldn't we all be angry about the role of race and gender in our society, still, after all this time? Aren't women all amibivalent about the impact our gender does or should have on our life choices? What do you think?

Meghan O'Rourke:

That's a really good point, and my only excuse is that I was writing overnight on deadline!

What I was trying to say, more precisely, was that in her demeanor on the campaign trail, Hillary (to my eyes) didn't manage to seem as open and humble about her situation as Obama did.

Obama is deeply ambivalent in those books: you're totally right. But on the stump he seemed willing to admit how hard it was for him -- and to have chosen to let people see how hard it was for him. So there's an ambivalence there, yes, but he managed to project a somewhat unified front ABOUT that ambivalence.

Whereas I felt Hillary switched back and forth more. Part of what I was getting at, or wanted to, IS that women do feel ambivalent and angry. And I nderstand Hillary's ambivalence and anger -- I really do. And I feel I've acted the way she has, writ small, in situations where I've felt chagrined that men seem to be given more authority by default.

But I do think it's the real challenge for women: how to care deeply about women's rights and equality while not becoming embittered.

And let's face the unfair, bitter truth: I, like many women, probably hold Hillary to a higher standard than I would many men. I wish that weren't the case, and I strive against it. But I'm sure I'm complicit in the double standard.

Like I said - what a tool.

Our next entry comes from yesterday's New York Times "Caucus" blog. Its the very patronizing item "For Clinton's Women Fans, Mourning and Anger." Here's your sign:

For many of these women, it was not just a matter of politics, but of identity. Older, more affluent, and often business-minded, Mrs. Clinton’s live audience last night resembled a more mature version of the cast of “Sex and the City.” Still, while they may be wearing Donna Karan and look as if life has treated them well, many said her struggle to gain the nomination -– and the insults they believe Mrs. Clinton has endured along the way – mirrors their own struggles in life and in the corporate world.

I can't muster anything more articulate; these fools have plumb worn me out. Please, someone else do it. Read more!

:: The Curious Case of the Contradictory Comments

A Tiny Mystery at our Very Own Doorstep

[New! See update below!]

I just want to point this out in case you missed it. Take a look at the two comments posted in response to the previous blog entry.

At 2:57pm, "onelight321" makes a critical but entirely rational-sounding and polite comment.

He even writes, "if only Hillary had let loose with the authentic human and connecting voice she found in the last three months of the campaign."

At 3:19pm, "onelight321" is a total freak.

As in "I'm sorry your deeply flawed, unscrupulous, despicable candidate lost. Ok, I'm not really sorry, as she is an insane sociopath."

So here's the mystery.

What could have happened in the intervening 22 minutes?

- Could a fellow student at the computer center, or a fellow inmate at the prison library, have jumped on, read the screen onelight123 left open, and taken advantage of onelight321's still-logged-in blogger identity?

- Did he post a comment before reading the item, only to read the item and become angry as all get-out - prompting the second, crazy comment?

- Is it a case of subconscious rage breaking free of the chains of repression? A Jeckyll and Hyde kind of thing?

- Might Obama have distributed different talking points during those 22 minutes, and onelight obediently switched gears?

- Crack? That stuff works pretty fast. Or so I'm told.

- Could both comments have come from two members of the same family? Meaning, perhaps onelight #1 is the mother, and #2 is her drain-bamaged 22 year old son? I'm talking likely demographics here people.

I fear this mystery may never be solved. Cool beans, though. I'd love to hear your theories (all three of you).

And no, of course I did not miss the irony of a guy posting two comments that actually demonstrate precisely the point I'm trying to make. Comment #1: how to blame Hillary for everything but in a polite and conciliatory manner. Comment #2: how to blame Hillary for everything in a way that confirms why I don't want to be part of a club that has people like that as members (and neither should you).

Feeling rather smug, I am.

UPDATE: As much as I don't want to spoil the fun, I think I've figured out at least one thing that happened in the past 22 minutes. It seems our new, demented friend spent time reading the rest of the posts, leaving comments similar to #2 (above) hither and yon.

So this what I think happened.

The Obama campaign sent out new talking points to their little blogger buddies telling them to be nice and giving them some suggestions. Phrases like "authentic human voice" sound exactly like what you'd get from a media hack. But onelight123 couldn't hold it together, for the very reasons I point out in my post. He couldn't stand to see someone - a girl, no less - disagreeing with him. He had to assert his moral superiority.

And that's what so much of this all comes down to, isn't it. Narcissistic - or insecure - guys who can't stand it when girls 'refuse' to agree with them.

Well, sucks to be them.

Read more!

:: We Should Not Vote for Obama

If we do something, things still might stay the same.
If we do nothing, we KNOW they will stay the same.

I didn't think I could get any more disgusted. But here we go again.

This is tonight's edition of the New York Times' Opinionator, written by Chris Suellentrop. Here's the link, but I'm going to quote the whole thing here.

Emphasis added:

Maybe it was her night after all: Hillary Clinton decided not to withdraw from the presidential campaign tonight, and the liberals in blogville are not happy about it, to put it mildly.

Matthew Yglesias of The Atlantic begins his blog post on Clinton’s speech by writing, “I probably shouldn’t write any more about this woman and her staff. Suffice it to say that I’ve found her behavior over the past couple of months to be utterly unconscionable and this speech is no different.”

He continues, "I think if I were to try to express how I really feel about the people who’ve been enabling her behavior, I’d say something deeply unwise. Suffice it to say, that for quite a while now all of John McCain’s most effective allies have been on Hillary Clinton’s payroll."

At The American Prospect’s Tapped blog, Dana Goldstein calls Clinton’s speech “troublesome.” “The more I think about it, the more it seems that Hillary’s entire speech was manufactured to rile up her supporters — instead of priming them to shift their allegiance to Obama,” Goldstein writes. “Yes, there’s a situation with Michigan and Florida. But is it really fair for Clinton to claim that her 18 million supporters nationwide have been made ‘invisible?’ Who’s supposed to be the bad guy here, scary Howard Dean? Clinton is offering more fighting rhetoric. But the fight should be over. Hillary tonight was a woman standing down more than half her party’s supporters and practically the entire Democratic establishment.”

The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait uses even tougher language. “I’d say that anybody on her staff who cares about their party has a moral obligation to publicly quit and endorse Obama,” he writes at The Plank, TNR’s staff blog. Chait also writes of the speech:

“Incredible. She justifies her continuing the campaign by saying that she finished the campaign. She doesn’t concede that Obama has a majority of delegates, let alone that he’s won. She repeats her bogus popular vote argument. She congratulates Obama’s campaign on its “achievements,” but barely musters a single good word about him.”

Chait’s colleagues at The New Republic are almost as exercised. Isaac Chotiner, also writing at The Plank, calls the speech “combative and petty” and headlines his post, “A Total Disgrace.” He concludes, “If Clinton wants people to believe that she cares more about the Democratic Party than her own career, she is failing badly.” Noam Scheiber says the speech was “outrageous,” “delusional,” and “inflammatory.” Scheiber writes at The Stump, TNR’s campaign blog:

“What good could possibly come of this? With Hillary proclaiming herself the legitimate winner, they’re clearly going to say “keep going.” If she actually does keep going, that’s a disaster for the Democratic Party. And if she doesn’t, you’ve just drawn a ton of attention to the fact that a large chunk of the party doesn’t accept Obama as the legimiate nominee. No, worse: you’ve encouraged them to think that, then drawn attention to it. What a disaster.”

End quote.

So, according to these geniuses, the number one priority is healing the rift in the party and bringing Hillary's supporters over to Obama. So say Matt, Dana, Jonathan, Isaac and Noam.

In fact, they criticize Hillary for being "petty," "combative," and "inflammatory."

And yet it's Matt, Dana, Jonathan, Isaac and Noam who go out of their way to insult Hillary, her staff and her supporters. They cannot muster one gracious word. They can't stifle one petty, combative, inflammatory comment. Apparently they just can't help it. Their nastiness - their hatred just brims over.

And that angry, angry Bill Clinton! Why, Obama's bully boys would never show anger! No, Matt, Dana, Jonathan, Isaac and Noam are the very picture of cool and conciliatory thinking.

And they wonder why we don't want to join them.

Can they not hear themselves?

Are they stupid?

Or are they still so high off the past six months of proclaiming how much more intelligent, more ethical, more strategic, more educated and more wealthy they are than those lowly Clinton supporters that they've burnt out a critical mass of brain cells?

Are they addicted to the ego boost?

Is Obamamania the political equivalent of crack? And are these guys too far gone to be saved?

The answer to all those questions is "yes," especially #3.

These guys have breathed in - and out - the fumes from so many self-congratulatory Obama homages and ego-boosting anti-Clinton bromides that they have lost their critical faculties.

Political crackheads. That's what we're left with.

Well, I'm not having it and I don't think you should either.

As the video I posted earlier says, we loathe Ronald Reagan for having tacitly allowed the so-called Southern Strategy to drum up racist support for his 1980 campaign.

Barack Obama has tacitly allowed a - what shall we call it? Testosterone strategy? That doesn't even do it justice. Its an insult to testosterone. What do you call it when a candidate walks on stage to Jay-Z's "[I've got] 99 Problems [but a bitch ain't one]"? A Prick Strategy? Well, that will have to do.

To get elected, Reagan benefited from the racist Southern Strategy. He never denounced the racism drummed up on his behalf.

To get elected, Obama benefited from the sexist, misogynist Prick Strategy. He's never denounced the sexism and misogyny slung on his behalf.

And I doubt he ever will.

Look, we don't need to agonize over this. Obama and his supporters don't want support from feminists. They don't respect us. This is not a hard decision.

In November, I will vote down-ballot. But I won't vote for President. (Forget doing a write-in, no one counts them). And then I will look for the total numbers of votes cast, and the total numbers of votes cast for President. Subtract the total number of votes cast for President from the total number of votes cast for a down-ballot item. The remainder is the protest vote.

Say No in November.

We can do it!


Read more!

:: A few thoughts on tonight

Why do I strongly doubt everyone would feel so "offended" about a candidate not conceding and supposedly not showing signs of grace tonight if that candidate weren't female? (Isn't it amazing that even when you're running for the highest office in the land, it's all about whether you're nice enough? Women are just expected to be nice in a way that men aren't, and it is so embedded in our culture that people can't even see beyond it.) The woman still won a freakin' primary today - today, when it's all supposed to be over, and people are still voting for her. And after she won a primary by over 30 points on Saturday. I just don't remember Mike Huckabee getting the same amount of scorn from the MSM even when it was over on the Republican side (and not nearly as close), but he was still in the race and still winning primaries. He could take his sweet time and make sure his supporters felt respected.

The MSM, the Obama campaign, and the DNC better wake up fast to the amount of bitterness there is out there among Clinton's voters, and it's not just some kooky old white women and ignorant racist rednecks, as the media keeps trying to portray. And the more they act like they did tonight, they more I just want to stay home in November. If this party and this campaign thinks they can win without the women and other voters who supported Clinton, we can certainly try to test that premise, but I don't think it's going to work so well. And while I'm glad Obama finally acknowledged his grandmother tonight and tried to acknowledge Clinton's contributions to the race, it's going to take a little bit more than that.

I am also sure that I am not the only woman who was stunned at how much sadness I felt tonight realizing that we aren't going to see a woman president any time soon, how that dream is just gone for now. It took 24 years after Geraldine Ferraro to get to this point. How long is it going to take to get back here? It's 2008, I'm going to be 31 years old tomorrow (and how sad was I to hear that I share a birthday with Dorothy Rodham, who will also face tomorrow filled with a sense of what could have been, though so much more so), and it feels like time, and I hate that that is gone. As if the bitterness of this race isn't enough, I think that's a reality as well. I knew what was going to happen tonight, and yet watching it slip away was unbelievably painful. Yes, it's a historic night, but can we also acknowledge the loss that so many of us also feel?
Read more!

:: Yes, I Will Not Vote For Obama

Watch this and tell me that despite this, its worth it to vote for this man. I'll take my chances with four years of McCain.

Well, kids, I've fallen a bit behind. I only watched this today, though its been out for weeks if not months. And lord knows its not because I've been working so hard.

I don't need any reminders to stimulate my antipathy towards Obama. But months from now, maybe it'll begin to fade - I doubt it, but maybe - and that's when I'll return to this video.

You have to watch the whole thing for the impact to settle in, because the cumulative effect is the whole point. Would that I had the ability to re-cut it and add some additional material that needs to be in there: the "tea in exotic locales" comment (Obama), the "specious claim to experience" comment (Kristof), the verbal vomit of Father Pfleger. [Also to correct that one typo!] More than any other time in my life, I want to learn video editing.

Read more!

:: What a Vile Human Being

Obama's campaign continues to be a vehicle through which some truly vile people vent their anger towards - and disgust with - white women

I had heard Obama had replaced Rev. Wright with a different spiritual advisor. As it happens, it was merely Obama's church inviting a guest speaker, who just so happened to have strong political opinions, and just so happened to share his opinion about Hillary. But because I don't pay that close attention, it wasn't until today that I learned this guy is some kind of bizarre Catholic priest - WWF wrestler hybrid. There's video, so I won't go too far in depth here. I'll just say that:

1) a very angry man screaming at the top of his lungs about how much he resents someone - how novel. A very angry man in a collar screaming at the top of his lungs about how much he resents some powerful woman - wow, I'm shocked.

We've all seen this plenty of times, from priests and non-priests, and it is always ugly. This guy sounds like one of those professional wrestlers when they go off on some diatribe about Jim McMahon. Except those guys are actually trying to act like steroid-addled freaks.

2) I'm glad to know that because not one of my ancestors had zip, zero, anything to do with slavery, I'm off the hook regarding contemporary racism. What a relief. Can't say the same for Scientist-at-Large though. He should be spending the rest of his life on his knees in abject apology for things his ancestors probably did.

3) Every presidential candidate believes he or she deserves the presidency. Why is this only evil when its a woman who believes in herself? And as for entitlement... there is no precedent for a woman becoming precedent. W felt entitled simply because of who he is - a member of the Bush family. Hillary had to fight her way to the top.

Okay, so I started to go in depth. Here's the link to the video; for the moment I've forgotten how to the do the embedding thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H11x6bMu4Y

This guy is disgusting. And look at that flock of sheeple getting off on his anger. Its like Church of the Living Dead in there.

Vile.
Read more!

:: Why She's Still Fighting

Yes, its for the principle - and because she wants Democrats to win

Just thought I'd share a few poll numbers with the three of you. If you have any doubt about why Hillary is still fighting for the nomination, let these figures be your guide.

Quinnipiac University
Florida
McCain 45, Obama 41
Clinton 48, McCain 41

Ohio
McCain 44, Obama 40
Clinton 48, Mccain 41

Pennsylvania
Obama 46, McCain 40
Clinton 50, McCain 37

Rasmussen Reports
Florida
McCain 50, Obama 40
Clinton 47, McCain 41

Survey USA
Missouri
McCain 48, Obama 45
Clinton 48, McCain 46

North Carolina
McCain 51, Obama 43
Clinton 49, McCain 43

I'll be the first to say "snapshot" head-to-heads are pretty useless in terms of predicting the eventual results. That said, these numbers are pretty bad for Obama with regard to the argument of the moment.

Now, in related business, let's check in with our favorite constituency - those white female swing voters - the compassionate conservative women - who should be the holy grail of any Democratic presidential campaign. You know, one of the constiuencies Obama ignores.

Gallup has some new research to share.

May 21, 2008
Obama Faces Uphill Climb vs. McCain Among
White Voters
by Frank Newport

Barack Obama, the presumed Democratic nominee, will likely enter the general election with more of a handicap among white voters than would have been the case if Hillary Clinton had been the nominee, based mainly on Clinton's stronger performance among white women.

A new Gallup Poll analysis of Daily tracking data collected between May 1 and May 17 shows that Clinton's edge among white voters is not, as some have hypothesized, based on Obama's problems among blue-collar white men, but reflects more the fact of Clinton's strength among white women.

White Male Voters

In general, Obama and Clinton perform exactly the same among non-Hispanic white men when pitted against presumptive Republican nominee John McCain. Both Obama and Clinton lose to McCain among this group by 21-point margins, 36% to 57%.

There has been discussion of Obama's presumed problem among blue-collar white males should he win the Democratic nomination. The current analysis shows that relative to Clinton, however, Obama does not suffer from a large "blue-collar male" deficit as has been hypothesized. Obama loses to McCain in a hypothetical matchup among non-college-educated white men by 25 points, while Clinton loses by 20 points.

Additionally, Obama has a compensatory strength among white-collar men, defined here as those with a college education. Among this group, Obama loses to McCain by 13 points while Clinton loses by 22 points.

All in all, these data suggest that the Democrats' probable nomination of Obama rather than Clinton does not mean Democrats will enter the general election with a bigger deficit among white men than they would have if Clinton were the nominee. The data from May suggest that Clinton may have done only slightly better than Obama against McCain among blue-collar white men, and that this slight advantage likely would have been offset by Obama's slight advantage among college-educated men.

White Female Voters

Among non-Hispanic white women, however, there is a significant difference in the way the two Democratic candidates perform against McCain.

While Obama loses to McCain by 16 points among non-Hispanic white women with no college, Clinton ties McCain. And while Obama does manage to squeak out a four-point advantage over McCain among college-educated white women, Clinton has an 11-point margin.

Although there has been a great deal of discussion of the problems that await Obama among white men should he win the Democratic nomination, this analysis suggests that while McCain certainly has a strength among this group, it is no more of a strength against Obama than it would be against Clinton. Clinton's slight advantage among blue-collar white men is offset by Obama's advantage among white-collar white men.

The bigger issue appears to be Obama's problems among white women, when compared to how Clinton would perform among this group.

Obama loses to McCain by nine points among white women, while Clinton wins by three points. Clinton does better than Obama among both blue-collar and white-collar white women.

All in all, although both Democrats are to a degree handicapped against McCain among white voters, Clinton would perform better than Obama in a general-election matchup among non-Hispanic whites. Combining white voters of both genders, the current analysis shows that McCain wins over Obama among whites, 53% to 38%, and beats Clinton by a considerably smaller 51% to 42% margin.

It is important to note that Obama runs about as well vs. McCain as Clinton does, and both Democrats currently maintain a slight advantage over McCain in general-election trial heats. So any weaker relative performance for Obama vs. McCain among a demographic group (such as white women or lower-educated voters) is made up for by a stronger relative performance among another group (such as blacks or higher-educated voters).

This would not be so much of a problem if the Obama campaign did not appear to be pathologically unable to reach out to any constituency that does not catagorically prefer him. Okay, that was not well put. I'll try it a different way. He hasn't done a single thing to reach out to white women specifically, even thought the campaign knew he had a problem there as far back as the New Hampshire primary election night, and Axelrod talked about writing off working class whites, saying they never vote Democratic anyway.

This is echt Obama. Remember how he ignored Hillary at the SOTU? His body language at the last three-way debate? When Obama feels dissed, he disses back. He tries to cut the person / group off. He shuns them. He disengages. He's the opposite of Senator Clinton, who carefully and systematically won over her many of her enemies by engaging them on substantive matters. She is a fighter. He cuts his losses and turns his back, literally and figuratively.

My prediction: lowest gender gap among independents since 1996, advantage goes to McCain.

Read more!

:: My baloney has a first name; it's N-A-R-A-L

This was so amazingly lame I felt it deserved it's own blogpost and not just a comment on ciccina's. Here's the transcript from the web chat NARAL held yesterday in response to the tremendous backlash that followed their endorsement of Barack Obama for president. Some of the questions seem pretty clearly planted by members of the NARAL staff. But most questioners really tried to get NARAL to be straightforward about why they were jumping on the Obama bandwagon at this late date.

Craig:

Was it really necessary to endorse Sen. Obama before the primary ended when both candidates are pro-choice? Can't NARAL criticize Sen. McCain's record on choice without having to simultaneously support only one Democrat?

Elizabeth Shipp:

The vast majority of voters still don’t know just how pro-choice Barack Obama is and how anti-choice John McCain has been during the quarter-century he has been in Washington, DC. Many voters who may be inclined to support McCain don’t know his positions on specific issues, particularly his consistent opposition to a woman’s right to choose. They believe instead that John McCain is a “moderate” and a “maverick” so assume he must be pro-choice.

Senator Obama needs an organization like ours to help close the identification gap with key voting constituencies before the fall campaign begins in earnest and people’s opinions are already formed about the two candidates. We can help ensure a pro-choice victory in November, but only if we act now.

Without a clear Democratic nominee, Sen. John McCain has been getting a free ride with the media, and a critical voting bloc that could very well swing the election: pro-choice Independent and Republican women. These women could very well make the difference between a pro-choice president in the White House and another four years of anti-choice policies from John McCain.

With our endorsement, John McCain’s free ride ends.

Sadly, no matter how many different ways the questions was asked, Shipp and Keenan stuck to their unsatisfying talking points. The comments on the chat reflect that readers found it as unsatisfying as I did:

By Hillary or Bust on May 16, 2008 5:38 PM

Wow...that chat was just...scary. I don't know if you are just rationalizing, naive, or downright stupid. And I don't believe for a minute that you thought carefully enough about the potential for backlash in your decision.

By Sarah Taby on May 16, 2008 9:12 PM

I just read the transcript of your contrived web talk. That was rediculous. Your organization and Nancy made no sense and continue to make no sense. Why can't you confess that you made a huge mistake? I think the many people who have expressed their anger at your endorsement should join together and protest in front of your headquarters until you accept your mistake and acknowledge our feelings in a more real and less paranizing manar. I want one of you talking heads to really address our disgust and anger!

A number of the commenters were appropriately ticked by Keenan's response to POLITICO, basically telling angry Clinton supporters (and even Obama supporters) to get over themselves. "In response to the current controversy, Keenan says people will get over their 'broken hearts.'" Oh, yeah. That'll bring 'em back to you, Nancy! The article is a fine read. NARAL may have been trying to ensure their place in the new administration, but they have succeeded in pissing off a number of women leaders on the Hill. Good job! That should help the movement! Read more!